QGA
Sort:
Anyone here ever like to try and hold onto that extra pawn in a queen's gambit accepted? I know black gets a worse position, but does have an extra pawn. Think there might be any usefulness to such an opening, a possible example of which is given here?
The queens gambit is a very tough combination opening to master, but once mastered, it is tough to be defeated.
Why not 6. Nf3?
Your example is pretty bad continuation no offense. e4>e3 imo and I would certaintly never put my queen on f3.
Phelan wrote:
Your example is pretty bad continuation no offense. e4>e3 imo and I would certaintly never put my queen on f3.
No problem. The idea behind e3 and Qf3 is after axb5 preventing cxb5 as Qxa8. Qa5 on blacks part is then pinning white's a pawn to the rood. e4, not playing for this trap, is met differently by black. I was just showing my idea to meet this trap, shown in a few opening books as why black should not try to hold on to the pawn in a QGA.
No white is definitely better after Bd2 and Rc1, black REALLY shouldn't try to hang on to that pawn.
hmm can white play 5.Nxb5? It certainly looks like it.
hmm apparently he can but it doesnt get him anywhere good.
In the QGA whites 3 Nc3 isnt the best move , there are 3 that score better in fact : e4,e3 and Nf3 all do better than 3 Nc3....however, Nc3 also scores better than 50% for white.
after 5th black move white is better for sure. i also ran it with chess engine and it gave + 0.62 which is pretty much won game if played properly. so look for another variation mate!
best.
No, black can't hold onto the pawn and if he tries to, white can get it back with a big edge, but it can be tricky for beginners and even early intermediate players. Don't take it with the idea that you have an extra pawn. The real idea of the QGA is for black to improve his position before white gains the pawn back.
there are lines in the semi-slav and slav where black can hold onto the pawn, and not be at a disadvantage, but black can't force white to play those lines.
SkyChess wrote:
I personally prefer 3. e3. Now if he tried to hold on to the pawn, he loses even more material. A possible continuation is 3. ...b5 4. a4 c6 5. axb5 cxb5 6. Qf3, and there is no way to save the rook unless to move 6. ...Nc6 or 6. ...Bb7. If 4. ...Bd7 then 5. axb5 Bxb5 6. Nc3 Ba6 7. Qf3 c6 8. Rxa6! Nxa6 9. Qxc6+ Qd2 10. Qxa8+ Qd8 11. Qc6+ Qd7 12. Qxa6 and white is up two minor pieces! lol, I spent that much of my time thinking of that, I have no life :)
In your second line, black would play 6...c6 to try and hold onto the pawn. However, the consensus seems to be that black cannot do this, so I guess it doesn't matter. Thank you all for commenting, though. I figured it probably wouldn't be best, but wanted to know what everyone else thought.
Black can cling to the pawn and if white plays it like a gambit, get games like this:
Anyone tried 3. ...Be6? Cannot find any literature about it. What am I missing?
3. ... Be6 is anti-positional. It blocks the e-pawn, making development of the rest of the pieces slower. It has been tried by strong players, but in the hands of mere mortals it doesn't tend to turn out well:
http://blog.chess.com/Loomis/amateur-adventures-with-1-d4-part-ii